(48) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) P.I.Shri Bagul. So, said evidence categorically discloses that accused Jawed had given that mobile to accused No.2 Pradip who used it on 18.6.2009. Hence from tower location, Police succeeded in tracing out that mobile and also in tracing out the real culprit in this crime by name Jawed. Unless and until accused Jawed had committed theft of that mobile from the house of Mansi Despande, on the date of incident, there was no reason for him to hand it over to accused No.2 Pradeep. Even the son of accused No.2 Pradip has admitted that his father i.e. accused No.2 Pradip told him that his one of the customers had given that mobile to him and hence, Mayur gave Sim­card to his father of Air­Tel Company. 82/­ All these witnesses were cross examined by the Advocates of the accused persons. But in order to disbelieve their testimony, nothing had been brought on record. So far as the evidence of Police Constable Shri Bahule is concerned, his cross examination was not conducted on behalf of accused No.1 nor recovery of said mobile from Pradip and the information given by Pradeep that he received that mobile from accused was denied at all on behalf of accused No.1 Jawed. The evidence of these witnesses shows that they might be knowing about